CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 1:96-CV-337
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1998

Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States

Seaman Christopher Gray sustained injuries at the Chickamauga Lock and Dam. Serodino, Inc., Gray's employer, and its insurer, Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, initiated a lawsuit against the United States of America and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, seeking contribution or indemnity related to Gray's injuries. The plaintiffs asserted admiralty jurisdiction over their claims. The United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the administrative filing requirement of the Admiralty Extension Act and that Gray's underlying admiralty claim against Serodino did not confer admiralty jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims against the United States. Consequently, the court granted the United States's Motion for Summary Judgment, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Admiralty jurisdictionSovereign immunitySuits in Admiralty ActAdmiralty Extension ActContributionIndemnificationSummary judgmentJones ActMaritime lawNavigable waters
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers

An employer initiated a lawsuit seeking $50,000 in damages against the United Packinghouse Workers of America and other labor organizations for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, citing strikes and work stoppages in New York in March 1948. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, challenging the court's subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and arguing that Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act was unconstitutional. They contended it exceeded Article III, Section 2 limitations, infringed upon the Tenth Amendment, and violated the Fifth Amendment's due process clause through discriminatory application to unincorporated labor organizations and improper service of process. The court, however, denied all motions. It affirmed that Congress, under the Commerce Clause, constitutionally created substantive federal rights for enforcing collective bargaining agreements and validly established federal jurisdiction and procedural rules for such suits, including service of process on labor organizations.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractFederal JurisdictionConstitutional LawDue ProcessCommerce ClauseTenth AmendmentFifth AmendmentLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. 81 C 2521
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 1981

Mandaglio v. UNITED BROTH. OF CARPENTERS, ETC.

Plaintiffs Dominick Mandaglio and Charles Ferrera, former members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, sued the union entities and several individuals after being removed from their positions and membership. They alleged violations of the Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 411(a) and 529, claiming procedural improprieties during internal union trials and a conspiracy among defendants. Defendants William Konyha and William Sidell, out-of-state residents, moved to dismiss the action against them for want of personal jurisdiction in New York. The court examined New York's long-arm statute, CPLR § 302(a)(2) and (3), to determine if jurisdiction could be established. Finding no prima facie factual showing of conspiracy or substantial New York contacts for Konyha and Sidell, the court granted their motion and dismissed them from the action.

Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure ActUnion MembershipRemoval from OfficePersonal JurisdictionConspiracyExtraterritorial JurisdictionNew York Long-Arm StatuteSummary DismissalDue ProcessInternal Union Procedures
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dirma v. United States

William Dirma, an employee of Coastal Dry Dock & Repair Corp., sued the United States for personal injuries sustained on June 26, 1985, while working on scaffolding on the USS THORN in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. He alleged negligence by the defendant in the erection of the scaffolding. The court found no admiralty jurisdiction as the accident occurred in a dry dock, which is considered an extension of land. However, federal jurisdiction existed under the Federal Torts Claims Act (F.T.C.A.), requiring strict adherence to administrative claim procedures, which the plaintiff allegedly met. The court ultimately determined that Coastal, not the Navy, was responsible for erecting scaffolding and providing a safe workplace, and the plaintiff failed to prove any negligence on the part of the United States. Consequently, the plaintiff's case was dismissed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentDry DockFederal Tort Claims ActAdmiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawNegligenceIndependent ContractorSovereign ImmunityUSS THORN
References
33
Case No. NO. 03-05-00031-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2005

Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Successor in Interest to the Former Texas Rehabilitation Commission v. Richard Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager at the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported alleged illegal practices to the State Auditor’s Office (SAO). Howard claimed his superiors retaliated against him by rating him below standard on performance appraisals and denying promotions and merit pay increases. He sued under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages, costs, and attorney's fees. The Department appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding Howard's good faith report, appropriate authority, causation, and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that Howard made a good faith report to an appropriate authority and that his report caused the adverse actions.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPublic EmployeeState Auditor’s OfficePerformance AppraisalMerit PayPromotion DenialDamagesCausationGood Faith Report
References
20
Case No. 97 Civ. 7455(SS)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1998

Schepis v. LOCAL UNION NO. 17, UNITED BROTH.

The plaintiff, Benedetto Schepis, a former union official, sought reimbursement of legal defense costs from Local Union No. 17 and District Council of New York City after his criminal conviction was overturned. The Union removed the case from New York State Supreme Court to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the LMRDA and LMRA. Schepis moved to remand the action, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion to remand, finding no federal cause of action for reimbursement under the LMRDA or LMRA, and explicitly noting that LMRDA preserves state law claims. The court also awarded Schepis costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred due to the improper removal.

Removal jurisdictionFederal questionLabor-Management Disclosure and Reporting ActLabor Management Relations ActUnion fiduciary dutiesState law claimsWell-pleaded complaint ruleComplete preemptionAttorney's feesRemand
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrenko v. United States

Plaintiff John Petrenko filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the United States, alleging civil rights violations including negligent beating, false arrest, and false imprisonment stemming from a 1988 incident with United States Park Police officers. Petrenko sought $10 million in damages. The Government moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court ruled that the United States is immune from § 1983 suits and that prior state court findings of probable cause precluded the false arrest and imprisonment claims. Petrenko's negligent beating claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, and his state claim for vehicle impoundment costs was also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as adequate state remedies exist.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Civil Rights ViolationFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentNegligent BeatingSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityCollateral EstoppelProbable CauseFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. United States

Plaintiff Deanna Dozier Park Cooper sued the United States under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) for emotional distress after a postal worker, Ronald Eudy, allegedly exposed his genitalia to her. Cooper claimed negligent hiring and retention of Eudy by the United States and sought to hold the government liable under a theory of respondeat superior, arguing Eudy was acting within the course and scope of his employment. The Defendant, United States, filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, arguing lack of liability based on the discretionary function exception of the FTCA for hiring and retention decisions, and asserting that Eudy's alleged actions were outside the scope of his employment. The Court granted the Defendant's motions, dismissing the negligent hiring and retention claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granting summary judgment on the respondeat superior claim, finding Eudy's conduct was outside the scope of employment. A motion to stay discovery was also granted.

Federal Tort Claims ActNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionRespondeat SuperiorDiscretionary Function ExceptionScope of EmploymentEmotional DistressPostal WorkerSummary JudgmentMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. 13-10-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2010

Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company and Cliff Welker v. Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales

This memorandum opinion from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker. They sought to reverse a trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration in a personal injury suit filed by Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales. The Moraleses' claims arose from Caesar's on-the-job injury while working for Unit Texas, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, and concerned a mandatory 'Occupational Injury Benefit Plan' with an arbitration clause. The appellate court found that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, and rejected the appellees' defenses, including arguments related to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Texas Labor Code provisions, unconscionability, and failure of consideration. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Workers Compensation ActNon-subscriber EmployerMotion to Compel ArbitrationUnconscionability DefenseMcCarran-Ferguson ActIllusory PromiseContractual DisputesEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hightower v. United States

Willie Hightower, a federal employee, sued the United States and three individual federal officers for alleged injuries from a 1999 arrest at a VA hospital campus. Hightower sought money damages under state tort laws via the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and constitutional claims under Bivens, despite having already received benefits under the Federal Employee's Compensation Act (FECA) for the same incident, which he certified as work-related. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It ruled that FECA provides the exclusive remedy for federal employees' work-related injuries, thereby precluding FTCA claims against the United States. Furthermore, Bivens claims against the United States are barred by sovereign immunity, and against individual federal employees, they are precluded by the comprehensive remedial schemes of FECA and the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA).

Federal Employee Compensation ActFederal Tort Claims ActBivens ActionSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionExcessive ForceFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSlanderLibel
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 6,604 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational